Thursday, July 6, 2017

Questions of Disclosure – Examining the 'Anti-Full Disclosure' Movement and the Possible Motives behind It

Most of us are well familiar with what is becoming known as the anti-Full Disclosure movement or the anti-Corey Goode movement. We have seen how some personalities
claim that Corey Goode, David Wilcock, Roger Ramsaur, and Cobra are "satanists," "liars," "swindlers," "cult leaders," along with various other
accusations against all of those who follow these four personalities.

Those who are most fervently pushing
the rumors of misconduct have yet to show any
solid proof behind their claims. However, the sheer number and
determination of these smear-campaigners to convince/coerce their would-be
audience to agree, may lead some to consider
these claims valid despite their lack of substance.

The countless slanderous presentations coming forward seem to reveal the targets of the defamation attempts
are not randomly chosen. In fact every one of these targeted
individuals has been at the forefront of the push for Full Disclosure. You can check this for yourself. These four individuals
who have been targeted for character assassination have been the most
prominent voices declaring the need to end all government, military,
and religious secrecy in our world.

Let's take a deeper look into the
methods used against full-disclosure activists.

Smear Campaigns

Ad Hominem (Abusive)Argumentum Ad hominem

(Also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

We can see that the textbook definition of ad hominem spares no detail of what these attacks truly are. Tactics such as these have a tendency to speak more against those using them than the target. They are considered low and divisive in the professional world, and are typically used by questionable politicians. They also seem to be the weapon of choice for all of those at the forefront of the movement against disclosure.

It would be one thing if the various subjects of criticism were presented with professionalism, respect, and honorable business practice, but from the start, it was apparent that upholding these professional standards was not the intent. From the beginning, the focus of the defamers was directed against the people involved in the disclosure movement. In fact, I have yet to see a single instance of where any of these critics actually focused on the data itself. In my observation, the flavor of the anti-full disclosed movement seems strikingly familiar to that of the anti-Trump campaign of CNN and the mainstream media.

This is not to say that the entire presentation of the testimonies of Corey Goode has been completely seamless. There are still loose ends that need to be tied. However, this does not justify the departure from respectful and professional journalism. Nor does it justify smear campaigns.

Getting to the Root

The anomaly at the center of the
anti-Full Disclosure movement seems clear. The common strategy seems
to be to ridicule and defame a person—usually Corey Goode—for
not having all of the answers (despite the irrationality of such an
expectation). This irrational double standard held against Corey
Goode seems to be employed in order to distract the audience from the
true goal of his testimony, which is to uncover these answers along with the entirety of the
truth through one or more full-disclosure data dumps.

Here is an exercise that anyone can do.
When you see someone trying their hardest to defame those promoting
full disclosure, resist the urge to overreact. Don't even raise an eyebrow.
Instead, examine their claims. Read their posts and listen to their
interviews, but when you do, be sure to search for one term—“Full
Disclosure.” Count how many times you see this term used by these
defamers. I will tell you now, you are not likely to see it once. If we find this to be the case, there is a likely reason for this.

I liken the anti-Full Disclosure
movement to a man who walks into a department store, goes to the isle
where the padlocks are sold, and purchases a lock with key included.
This man then takes the lock and key home with him and opens the
package, but instead of using the lock and key as they were intended,
goes straight to the bathroom, opens the toilet lid, drops the key in
and flushes it. Then afterward, this man shouts at the top of his
lungs complaining to the world that he can't open his lock.

This is the logical equivalent of the
anti-Full Disclosure movement. This movement ridicules one man (and his coworkers) for not having all of the answers.

It is true that Goode does not have every answer we seek, and he admits this. However, he still seems to be doing his best to promote the obvious necessity for Full Disclosure. In
short, the problem and the solution—both the collection of unanswered questions and the efforts to gain these answers—come in one package, but defamers seem to ignore the solution and obsess over the problem.

Ask yourself why every single public
figure who has fervently promoted Full Disclosure has been so heavily
attacked by defamers. Ask yourself why virtually none of these defamers will
dare speak the words, “Full Disclosure.” Then ask yourself who
most greatly benefits from the continued secrecy which has enslaved
humanity for literally millennia of time.

Contempt for Disclosure?

The commonalty among all of the ad hominem attacks against the four individuals mentioned has been to demonize the character of each individual, to claim that none of them are worth listening to and then to simply leave it at that. There is no alternative movement for full disclosure presented, and no effort to uncover official secrecy and the crimes against humanity that have been imposed upon the people for centuries. There is simply defamation and dismissal. In my view this reveals quite a bit about the true origins of these attacks.

It is not at all difficult to see the
possible motivation of defamers, should we choose to. If we were to
see the man shouting about his closed lock even though we knew he
deliberately flushed his key, we might call him “insane.” In
some cases this may be true for Cabal members, but many simply don't
want their crimes to be revealed to the world. Many of these Cabal
members also want to maintain their positions of power and influence
over the common people.

Naturally, those who stand to lose the
most from the complete end of official secrecy would be those who oppose the
idea most passionately. This would include the Cabal and roughly all
of the crime syndicates and secret societies which compose the Cabal
ranks. These groups trace their linage back thousands of years and
would likely do anything to maintain their positions of power. This
would mean doing everything they could to stop Full Disclosure. In
this case, defaming its most prominent spokespeople seems to be the
preferred method of choice for these secret societies and Cabal
minions.

It is perfectly fine to practice any religion and to hold any belief we choose. As long as those beliefs respect free will, and as long as we acknowledge those beliefs as such, there is typically not a problem. However, when we start treating our personal beliefs as fact, then problems arise.

Some go a step further and begin to ridicule others for believing different than they themselves choose to. These oppressive zealots may even publicly ridicule others and claim that their own belief system is superior to all others. This theocratic way of thinking has become a hindrance in our world society in the form of Illuminati religions and their various sects. It is this satanic ideology which seems to be at the center of the anti-Full Disclosure movement.

The Case for Unity

I believe the reason that all of the
smear attempts have avoided the subject of Full Disclosure is because
no one can argue with it. It is an obvious necessity to all of
those who stand to gain from a complete disclosure event.

Full Disclosure is a reality that sells
itself. It needs no “scam artist,” “cult leader,” or
“satanist” to promote it because, once again, its necessity is
obvious. This, I believe is why no one attempting to defame Corey
Goode, David Wilcock, Roger Ramsaur, or anyone else will dare speak
the words. I believe it is this necessity which these defamers have been
commissioned to avoid and distract from.

This thorough revelation of all secrecy is the central hub of
the truth movement at this point. The center is not a person, as
some defamers claim. The hub is not a “cult,” it's not “Satan,”
and it is not “money.” The reason people flock to it is because
they value the truth that Full Disclosure will bring to the world (though there are a few exceptions).
These truth-seekers remember that this information was part of the
very reason they awakened. It is the highest motivating factor which
drives their daily search for higher knowledge.

The fact is that it doesn't matter who
declares the need for this disclosure of all official secrecy in our
world. It could be a familiar personality. It could be a David
Wilcock or a Corey Goode. It could be a billboard with
Santa Claus spreading the need of the message. It could even be an
inmate at the nearest county prison, but the fact always remains: It
doesn't matter who is speaking the need. The words are always true
and the need absolutely exists.

The anti-Full Disclosure movement may
attempt to shoot every messenger who speaks, but in so doing, they
have shown their hand. We know who benefits from secrecy, and it
most certainly is not the common people.

I believe it is time to leave the petty squabbling behind and get back to the business we
came here to complete. Though I can't speak for everyone, this most
definitely applies to me, and I hope it applies to you as well.

Instead of fixating and obsessing over
the details of one man's life, why not add to our pursuit for truth
the entirety of the answers we have all been searching for?

We have a job to do and a world to
liberate from ignorance and slavery. I say spare the distractions
and bring on Full Disclosure.

* * * * *

It was only by a miracle that I was
able to write this article. Due to health issues, I have been unable
to write much of anything as of late, but today seemed special. For
some reason, I had the sustained energy to type these words out and
get them to you. Wouldn't you have it that the very same day that I
come out of hibernation, an extremely revealing YouTube video on the
exact same subject comes forward. This video is packed with
eye-opening material on what seems to be the true intent behind the
character attacks against the Full-Disclosure movement and the MOFUN
members.

I could get into the details, but
that's best left to Mike Wiskowski himself and the YouTube channel,
Mind Alchemy.

Discerning the Mystery is a project I started to help wake the people up to their true potential of spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if I am successful, it is all worth it. If you enjoy what you read, please give this a like and share on Facebook and social media. Also, if you feel so inclined, please give a donation.

Feel free to send me an email and tell me what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let me know.

8 comments:

Thanks for this reasoned analysis, but I didn't really need it. I see Goode and the others who've been attacked and I compare how they move and speak, and I see Ryan and DJ and the difference in their voices, movements and they way they hold themselves is striking. I would love to see that Body Language analyst review films of these people. But even without her, it's easy to see DJ is mealymouthed and Ryan is squirrelly, even the pitch of his voice is nervous.

When I started this site, I immediately began to have problems with people who seemed to be paid trolls who attempted to bring any conversation down that I tried to facilitate. They would make rude comments, attack users and personalities seemingly without regret. Consequently I had to begin screening the comments that came through.

I would honestly like to post some of your comments, but unfortunately I have not been able to. I intend to keep DTM a positive and constructive website. It's fine if readers have an opposing opinion to an article. As long as they are respectful and constructive with their criticism, and if they can refrain from attacking and smearing others, their comments will be posted.

I cannot allow DTM to be a facilitator of attacks, defamation attempts, or smearing of any kind, but if a person can remain constructive and stick to the information itself, they will be shown the same respect they give others. If not, I won't disrespect them, but I can't post their comments either.

You do raise a good point though. I should post these standards soon so that people can know how to get their comments posted.

It is relatively easy to tap into someones energy and get a feel who they are, their integrity, are they manipulated or are they aware of their direction.Like this person on the top with sun glasses. Very dark, in service to self.Paul? Ryan is just a poor sod. If I had any emotions I would pity him. He is totally controlled from the inside out.

I don't pretend to know the truth, but Corey's new partner's tactics are less than honorable. And to declaim his detractors as "anti-full disclosure" is just plain silly. They have found what they believe are critical inconsistencies in Corey's behavior, as well as his story and, in the interest of giving more information so we can form our own opinion based upon more than one side of a story is a laudable goal. I will continue to follow all of the sides to this before reaching my own conclusions.